M/S Sap Electrocontracts Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SAP Electrocontracts Private Limited, is challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order created a demand against the petitioner for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner's primary contention is that the notices issued under Section 73 were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the notices and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The respondent is the State of U.P. and another.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax. The Court reasoned that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which held that uploading notices on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab. The ratio decidendi is that proper communication of statutory notices and orders is essential for due process, and if the communication mechanism on the GST portal fails to provide adequate notice, the assessee should not be prejudiced. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 clear days to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes proper communication to the assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenging the order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, where a similar issue led to a remand. They also cited M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Argument: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, stated that the assessing officer has no option to choose specific tabs for uploading and that any issue with the portal's functionality would need to be addressed by the GST Network.